Socialised Medicine the myths and the facts - page 31

The first and the most obvious concern is the cost to the patient and their family, we all know how devastating an illness can be for patients and their family many times I have witnessed the despair... Read More

  1. by   Ginger's Mom
    Quote from elkpark
    Ooooooh, ya got me! I'm not a CCM, I wouldn't live in MA for love or money, and I haven't taken a "240 hour insurance course, " whatever the heck that is ...

    You made a broad, vague statement, "(Y)ou are incorrect, in my state health insurance is non profit," that implied there was no such thing as for-profit insurance in MA, and I questioned that since I'm not aware of any state in the US that has no for-profit health insurance providers (indeed, in some states, there are no non-profit options available). I was already aware that there are a number of well-respected non-profit programs available in MA, but thank you for providing the links. You misunderstood my point for profit patients come to MA ( their insurance is not written in MA)

    You have now responded with a statement that states there are at least two for-profit companies providing health insurance in MA, United Healthcare and Aetna, so it turns out my misgivings (or misunderstanding) about your initial statement were correct, so I don't see what you're kvetching at me about.

    Whatever --
    What is your insurance background? I am saying that I do have an expertise in my state, there are NO non profits allowed to write policies. Since MA has world class health care, patient with profit insurances are admitted to the hospital. They pay almost double what Medicare, Medcaid, the other insurances pay well too. This new bill won't effect me personally since the
    changes have been made. But now I have to pay extra income taxes and student loans are revamped,


    You have not proven to me one "profit" insurance that is in MA. So my point is you are factually correct.

    But I would be happy to review any companies that are for profit in MA, so I can be educated when dealing with patients.

    I thought this thread is about factual information.
  2. by   Ginger's Mom
    Quote from elkpark
    Ooooooh, ya got me! I'm not a CCM, I wouldn't live in MA for love or money, and I haven't taken a "240 hour insurance course, " whatever the heck that is ... Ceri

    You made a broad, vague statement, "(Y)ou are incorrect, in my state health insurance is non profit," that implied there was no such thing as for-profit insurance in MA, and I questioned that since I'm not aware of any state in the US that has no for-profit health insurance providers (indeed, in some states, there are no non-profit options available). I was already aware that there are a number of well-respected non-profit programs available in MA, but thank you for providing the links.

    You have now responded with a statement that states there are at least two for-profit companies providing health insurance in MA, United Healthcare and Aetna, so it turns out my misgivings (or misunderstanding) about your initial statement were correct, so I don't see what you're kvetching at me about.

    Whatever --
    Ceritified case manager.

    NO non profit companies write policies, unlike you these patients love coming to MA since other stated have refused to treat them for their life threatening - Sorry I was unclear, NO Profit making insurance companies write polices. You have misinformation, and like you I would like to see you supporting documentation , just a courtesy since you asked me it would be only fair to see where you get your information,
  3. by   Ginger's Mom
    REALLY!! You make more than $200,000/year as a nurse? Those are the only people whose tax will increase as a result of Reform of Health Care...........

    No, I make less than half, but now state taxes which provides double service. There are federal taxes for this new plan, the $200,000 salary every body is paying extra taxes.....there is no limit ..they are taxing medical supplies, health insurance.

    I said in previous posts I was confused, but it seems like you have not kept up with the bill. Plus I forgot to mention health care preminums are going up.

    No raise - higher costs I guess you must be so wealthy you can pay taxes with out question, as a middle class worker I try hard not to pay anything extra,
  4. by   elkpark
    Quote from MedSurg32RN
    What is your insurance background? I am saying that I do have an expertise in my state, there are NO non profits allowed to write policies. Since MA has world class health care, patient with profit insurances are admitted to the hospital. They pay almost double what Medicare, Medcaid, the other insurances pay well too. This new bill won't effect me personally since the
    changes have been made. But now I have to pay extra income taxes and student loans are revamped,


    You have not proven to me one "profit" insurance that is in MA. So my point is you are factually correct.

    But I would be happy to review any companies that are for profit in MA, so I can be educated when dealing with patients.

    I thought this thread is about factual information.
    Quote from MedSurg32RN
    Ceritified case manager.

    NO non profit companies write policies, unlike you these patients love coming to MA since other stated have refused to treat them for their life threatening - Sorry I was unclear, NO Profit making insurance companies write polices. You have misinformation, and like you I would like to see you supporting documentation , just a courtesy since you asked me it would be only fair to see where you get your information,

    "Massachusetts regulators issued their first batch of health care price controls on Thursday, rejecting the vast majority of small business premium increases sought this year by the state's major insurers. Insurance Commissioner Joseph Murphy said he had rejected 235 of 274 proposed rate increases because they included 'excessive increases and rates unreasonable relative to the benefits provided.' ...

    ... All 33 plans offered by three out-of-state, for-profit insurers-Aetna, ConnectiCare and United HealthCare -- were approved."

    http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/...P3NbAD9EQDJD80


    "Making good on Governor Deval Patrick's promise to reject health insurance rate increases deemed excessive, the state Division of Insurance yesterday denied 235 of 274 increases proposed by insurers for plans covering individuals and small businesses. ...

    ... Several proposals, including those from for-profit, out-of-state insurers such as Aetna, ConnectiCare, and United HealthCare, were approved after the companies worked with Insurance Division staffers on ways to reduce costs."

    http://www.boston.com/business/healt..._hikes/?page=2

    If you want to claim that you're right and I'm wrong because Aetna, ConnectiCare, and United Healthcare corporations aren't physically located within Massachusetts, I will happily concede that is the case. However, it looks like private-for-profit healthcare insurance coverage is available and can be purchased in Massachusetts.
  5. by   Ginger's Mom
    Just because they obtained approval that is only one small step of the process. Doesn't mean they are writing policies.



    https://www.mahealthconnector.org/po...ctor------This is site where the state sends you for information.


    The is the "official state site".. I have tried every potential situation and none have revealed a for profit insurance.

    I choose to believe a government site over your Google search.


    Please answer my question, what insurance background do you have besides a RN? I live in this state and have passed a national exam regarding case management and have a degree in health care admin. Other then your goggling skills what is your qualification other than citing sources from a failing Boston newspaper?


    The bigger point everyone (98%) of MA citizens have health insurance and things have gone for good to bad.


    Another question, if you are such an activist why doesn't you home state have universal care?
  6. by   Ginger's Mom
    I am bowing out of this discussion, hope you all get the health care you want. I am glad everyone has lots of money to pay extra taxes with lower salaries for this new bill.



    I just wish people who cite their credentials which give them an expertise in this area. And I hope nurses know the difference between and Google search and an official government site. I give up, time will tell who is correct.
  7. by   talaxandra
    Could we move away from specifics about individual US states and who has what qualification, and return to the issues raised by the OP? Madwife asked the followng in her original post:
    Quote from madwife2002
    Having worked in a country which has socialised medicine I can certainly see the pit falls and the benefits. What I dont understand is the fear behind having socialised medicine In my opinion socialised medicine has more positive benefits than negative benefits. (emphasis added)
    She added information about the pressure cost adds to patients and families, asking if admissions caused by 'non-compliance' with medication could be due to the cost of preventative care (including meds), and wondering if subsidising medication would be cheaper for everyone than repeat, emergency presentations. Also along preventative lines, what about follow up at home for people with newly-diagnosed diabetes (and other chronic conditions), free phone help lines, and ante- and post-natal care? Madwife commented that these were all elelments of the UK universal health care program but sadly unavailable to her patients in the US.

    Whether or not the US changes to a universal health care model makes no difference to me personally - though I've enjoyed visiting your lovely country, I have no intention of moving there to join my two siblings. I've participated in this long, and often interesting, discussion because I hope that my experiences of universal health care will be of use to some members unsure of how different systems work, interested in alternatives, or wanting facts. I have to admit that I find it annoying when I post a factual response to a question about the practice of universal health care, or to counter a fallacy or misunderstanding, only to have it wholly ignored, but that's part of online life.

    And I'm still fascinated by the first point raised by MadWife - why the idea of universal health care rouses such fear and antagonism. Whatever your stance on the issue, surely we can all agree that both universal health care (in its many guises) and the US model have positive and negative elements, depending in part on where you are in the community your system serves. None of the UHC models is perfect, and nobody lauding them has, to my knowledge, claimed that. Similarly, the US model has flaws for at least some users. Can we use this as a launching pad to discuss differences and benefits?
  8. by   lamazeteacher
    When something seems confusing, follow the money. The way the anti-health care reform folks have tried to sabotage it, is to threaten higher taxes. Taking away what people have, is frightening, and fear causes resistance.

    All Americans, except those who are native to this country (AKA Indians), came from another country where their fortunes were threatened, and they came here to find.....................MONEY! So in everyone's DNA there is a hunger for the stuff, and fear that someone else will take it away.

    Another fear people have, is communism. Throughout the past century, cold and warm wars with Russia and especially the Viet Nam war FREEDOM was the war cry. Freedom prevents others from comingling your MONEY, taking it from the average citizen and giving it to others thought not to be worthy.

    So socialized medicine means communism and lack of freedom. Liars screamed about "death squads", and some idiots believed that. They also believed claims that everything they like about medicine as it's practiced here today will be gone, once "socialised medicine" occurs in this country. Call it what you will, to them it will always carry the stigma of enforced change.

    Of course the only people who will lose anything, is the very rich, who will be taxed 1.3% of the income (not their amassed fortunes) they make/year. Originally that was supposed to be 5% but the hue and cry from those who would never miss that money was enougfh to decrease the amount they'll be taxed, rather than "throw the baby out with the bathwater". Common sense tells us that those, making over $200,000/year and especially those who have higher incomes won't suffer "ourageous fortune" because they already have outrageous fortunes! Their beef is that they want to choose the charity they might care about enough to bequeath 1.3% of that overage, and then deduct it from........you guessed it: their taxes. Then, of course they're used to receiving homage and honors for their largess.

    I know these "high rollers well, as I was President of the American Cancer Society's CA coastal cities unit (which included Beverly Hills), 3 decades back. Contributors were rolled out at any possible opportunity, usually at "black tie" events where their clothing and blinding "bling" things worn there, cost more than their donations. The person who had that post before me, was the president of a bank...... I think they wanted some realism after that, and I happened to be married to a big money maker lawyer (whose ability to part with a buck was severely limited). The firm paid for a table at a fund raiser, and that clinched my presidency......

    So the government finally decided to persuade monied folk to share their wealth in a meaningful way. So what did those fear mongers do? They're scaring the pants off those with less, to make them suffer too. Unfortunately those who scrabble for less gain, believe that. There's something about havenots, that overpowers reason, and they respect those with riches, so they believe the wealthy, who scream of pain about the small (comparatively) amount they'll fork up for the masses, wanting to make those with less think they'll have to do the same (untrue). The thing everyone has in common, is resentment about taxation. That was why the original "tea party" took place, after all.

    Coming from Canada as a child, on a train headed for NYC each Easter and Christmas to visit my aunt, I always knew when we'd passed the border into the U.S. because the housing (near the train tracks) was in worse shape and garbage was all around it. My mother told me those were "slums". Anyone who has visited Niagara Falls knows what I mean, as they may have noticed the difference between the New York side and the Canadian one. Somehow Americans don't mind the blight, as long as it's not in their neighborhood. As Home Health Nurses know all too well, those people residing in poor neighborhoods have little to no knowledge of richer ones. It's just the way it's always been, for them.

    The reason the morbidity and mortality rates here are similar to those of third world countries, is because those with more resources, turn away from the poor rather than helping them up, due to a warped idea of their unworthyness. That way they can carry on as if poverty here doesn't exist. Somehow poor people came to agree with the rich and lost their dignity, along with their belief in a better future.

    Once health improves, and possibly education, maybe hope will return and we can attain the wellness that other civilised countries have. I wonder though if the wealthy will continue to separate themselves, so they won't see the conditions they caused.

    Now obviously one can't believe that all the poor people are good, and the rich ones are bad. Maybe humility will mix with the ability to create wealth, and mutual sharing will become the norm here. Yes I believe in miracles!
  9. by   Jstand
    Quote from MedSurg32RN
    I am bowing out of this discussion, hope you all get the health care you want. I am glad everyone has lots of money to pay extra taxes with lower salaries for this new bill.



    I just wish people who cite their credentials which give them an expertise in this area. And I hope nurses know the difference between and Google search and an official government site. I give up, time will tell who is correct.

    Nice to hear that you are bowing out. Arguing vigorously over some trivial detail and trying to say that taking a short course on the subject makes you an expert doesn't add much. There truly aren't a lot of people who will be paying extra taxes under this bill. I do hope that physicians take a nice big pay cut though.
  10. by   talaxandra
    Thank you for your explanation, lamazeteacher I have to admit that it still doesn't make sense to me on a rational level, but most of our decisions are made first and justified after so it's uderstandable that this should be no different. The distressing thing is that if that's true it's going to be very difficult to reach any kind of concensus or accord, which is a shame.
  11. by   Sade
    Quote from talaxandra
    And I'm still fascinated by the first point raised by MadWife - why the idea of universal health care rouses such fear and antagonism.
    Here's the answer to your question... I'd estimate that very few people hate the idea of universal health care. Who doesn't want to take care of his/her neighbor? The problem, which rouses fear and antagonism, is that in the U.S. we have this little thing called the Constitution. When our politicians abuse, misuse, and intentionally overstep the laws of our land, then yes you will have many folks upset because an ignored crime is taking place by it's government. If folks want to help their neighbors with medical bills then start a fundraisers, which I have been involved in to try to help those less fortunate. Our Constitution is what has made and will continue to make the U.S. great! But as long as our Congress remains a prodigal institution, then our greatness will continue to slowly but with certainty fade away.

    Here below in Article 1-Section 8 of our Constitution it states the powers that are given to Congress BY OUR CITIZENS. ANY OTHER POWERS EXERCISED BY CONGRESS IS A CRIME and should be reserved specifically for the STATES as can be seen in our 10th admendment
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    10th admendment. - "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."


    Article 1, Section 8: The Congress shall have power To lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defence and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States; To borrow money on the credit of the United States; To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes; To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States; To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures; To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States; To establish post offices and post roads; To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries; To constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court; To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations; To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water; To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years; To provide and maintain a navy;To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces; To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions; To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress; To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings;--And To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.
  12. by   erwigg
    Quote from Shaka
    I appreciate the information Sharrie, I am not familiar with pounds vs dollars, maybe someone could convert it for me.
    Shaka
    it has hovered about $1.60 american to about 1pound
  13. by   getreal
    Re: Socialized Medicine the myths and the facts
    Originally posted by Jstand

    "Nice to hear that you are bowing out. Arguing vigorously over some trivial detail and trying to say that taking a short course on the subject makes you an expert doesn't add much. There truly aren't a lot of people who will be paying extra taxes under this bill. I do hope that physicians take a nice big pay cut though."

    After trolling the posts, I've decided Jstand is pretty much clueless and really kind of a jerk. You definitely have some issues and have no clue about nursing or physicians. Furthermore I suspect by your overall tone you probably enjoy getting a rise out of people by stating blatant nonsense. Since you're a CPA Jstand, I'll start with you. As a CPA I know you work hard, or at least I'm giving you credit that you work as hard as my friends who are CPAs- especially long days around tax season. By your logic, since there's software that can essentially "do your job" for tax preparation you should ideally be paid less, regardless of the amount of time you spent training or the hours you put in currently. You also talk a lot about physicians/residents/medstudents "whining" about what they go through. Just like the process of becoming a CPA, there are hoops to jump through in medicine- only undoubtedly you don't have 150K-300K in loan debt, nor risk hepatitis, AIDS, TB, psychotic patients, ethical dilemmas, dealing with death or any of the other issues you think they whine about. I don't advocate a pay cut for you, even though you don't deal with these things, trained for many years, and work hard because its not the right thing to do. This is America, where ideally if you work hard, you should get compensated for it regardless of what you do. Ideally with increased complexity, risk, or duration the more one should make. Since this is a nurse website, I've got to plug nurses as the saints of medicine that are truly on the front lines. They work hard, have additionally been substantially trained, and face all the risks physicians/residents/medstudents face as stated above (i.e. hepatitis, AIDS, etc). They definitely make physicians and resident's lives easier. Finally, Jstand if you want to know whom I think should get paid just as much as physicians think about our teachers, soldiers/police/firemen, and the people that empty your trash and clean your toilets. They put up with more frustration and expose themselves to dangerous situations as much as anyone and should be compensated as much as physicians.

    Now for some real facts about our healthcare system the general public doesn't know:


    1. Insurance rates are high because insurance companies are making a killing- Wrong! While some insurance companies are also investment companies and may in roundabout ways try to offset losses with insurance income, these are not the majority, usually not well managed and may indeed be bending laws and exploiting loopholes. The TRUTH is there is a huge cost shifting in this country from those who are covered by the government. The government pays horribly for medical care. In order to keep the hospital doors open and lights on with the pittance the government pays, patients with private insurance get bigger bills because insurance will pay what's required to operate. This unfortunately gets translated into higher insurance costs for patients. Unfortunately many without insurance use the ER as a clinic and believe the government is taking care of them. They believe universal health care will work great because of this experience. In reality insurance costs are unaffordable because this behavior is driving insurance costs upwards!


    2. Physician compensation per procedure, read, patient, etc has actually gone down. Physicians are actually getting paid less than they have in the past due to government compensation. They make up for this and maintain their salaries because they must see more patients and work longer hours. They work longer hours and see more patients because there are more patients to see- people are living longer and diseases that were once fatal are now being treated, prolonging life, if not curing the disease completely. Since patients are living longer there are more patients to see per physician, creating a relative shortage of physicians. There is a shortage of physicians because medical school admissions have not increased at the same rate as patient volume. Medical school admissions have not increased because there is a shortage of residency positions-, which leads me to my next point.

    3. The government pays the overwhelming majority of resident salaries. That's right, Medicare pays for resident salaries. They allocate an amount of money to each teaching institution for resident salaries so there is a finite number of resident positions available each year, which is why medical school admission rates have not increased over the years- there would be no residency spots to continue their training. Now you could say we could pay residents less to open more money up for funding new positions but that would definitely turn away applicants, especially since loan repayment ideally begins once residency starts and the hours worked are substantial during residency.

close